Pet Peeve: Web Pages with "Free" Signups

I don't read the New York Times online. This is inconvenient, but I do it as a matter of principle.

There is, in my humble opinion, absolutely no reason to sign up a "free" account for such services. What's the point if it's free? What benefit do you, the reader, gain from having this superfluous hoop to jump through?

You might say, "Well, this allows them to customize the default page to my interests". News Flash: That's a nice feature, but why does this require that they block me from reading articles?

You might say, "Well, what's the harm in setting up the free account?"
This just in: Giving out your personal information unnecessarily is bad. That and I don't particularly like the oblique attempts at making me a part of their mailing list/random offers.

You might say, "Just make up someone and get a bogus free account!"
Editorial:

What we are suggesting here is that in order to circumvent a silly and superfluous concept, readers should fill in the free account with gobbledygook. This is an activity that generally doesn't require much time and effort.

This does not change the fact that the existence of this arbitrary barrier is unnecessary. This does not change the fact that it only serves as a tool by which they take your personal information, your browsing habits, and your email and use them for personal gain. All this does is allow me, one person, to circumvent the system and confuse their numbers.

Will I? No way.

I'm too deeply offended by their assumption that I, like the gibbering masses of uninformed internet browsers, am so ingratiated to them for publicizing their articles on the internet that I will gladly join their Big Brother Club and subject myself to their scrutiny. It's a needless hassle, a pointless hurdle, an inconvenient shenanigan and I won't even validate with a bogus account.

There is absolutely no benefit conferred to me by playing their games. I don't gain anything from having a free account between me and their articles. It's ridiculous and I will have none of it.

So you say, "Hey, it costs money to make that paper, they need to make cash somehow!"
Bulletin: The Washington Post and the Boston Globe don't cost money to view online, and they also don't require free accounts to do so. The whole account this is a voluntary perk, a benefit to those that truly want it.

If money was really a problem, they'd charge people to view it. As it stands they more than make up their operating costs on ads, and by suckering people into "free" accounts.

I treat all such institutions the same way. Any site that requires me to sign up to download something, to view something, or basically to do whatever it is I wanted to do with no noticeable benefit, I just turn the other way and go home.

I miss out on some nice things this way, but I think it's worth it.

My Tank is Fight

Or was it "My Economy is Tank"?

Today the house rejected the $700bn bailout plan. The majority of Democrats voted for, and the majority of Republicans voted against. More Republicans voted against than Democrats voted for.

I'm not an economic expert, but I personally think this is a good thing. I wouldn't have been terribly upset if it had passed, but the bill moved far too quickly through the system to have been properly vetted. As a corollary to Obama's excellent point from the debate, "$700bn is really freaking important."

In any case, the aftermath of this is going to be huge both economically and politically. Economically you might have noticed the 500 point dive on the Dow. Personally, I think investors are far too jittery; instant communication is not doing the economy any favors today. Politically, just wow.

Both Obama and McCain stand to be hurt by this. Obama may not have been quite as gung ho as McCain, but the general impression he has been giving is that of support for the bill. That won't help his image in the eyes of many people I know who opposed the bill. Similarly, the surprising lack of Democratic support (a full 40% of Democrats voted against) could count against him among those who supported the bill. The McCain camp has already made accusations to that effect.

However, McCain stands to lose a lot more than Obama. He made a huge show last week of returning to Washington to fix this, and has been worked hard all weekend to establish his role as a key figure in making this happen. That it didn't happen, and the way in which it didn't happen, destroys and corrupts this narrative.

That 65% of Republicans, his party he was supposed to bring in line, voted against the bill undermines his credibility as a leader in his own party. As much as he might complain about Obama's inability to do better with the Democrats, the total failure of the Republicans to support their candidate's crusade for a resolution is going to sting McCain and hard.

You might speculate that Pelosi intentionally gave a partisan speech hoping for just such a result, and malicious intent or no she deserves a serious "WTF" for thinking that was a good idea. Still, it was Republicans who stabbed McCain in the back. It's going to be more than difficult to blame the Democrats for failing to support a bill they outvoted Republicans on by a 2-1 ratio.

McCain is now in a very perilous position. He gambled, and lost, on this bill. When and if it passes, even if it were later today, the narrative of McCain as the leader and diplomat is shattered. He may even be seen as at fault for the failure by bringing in the disruptive influence of presidential politics into the mix. Whatever the consequences of his crapshoot, the economy will continue to be the #1 topic for the rest of the week at least as Washington scrambles to revamp the bill for a second go. Biden and Palin will face off Thursday which, barring a miracle or some extreme spin, will likely be less a debate and more of a massacre.

The most amazing thing about this is that McCain's campaign will continue, and with gusto. It always strikes me how little such enormous failures affect people's choices and considerations. Obama wouldn't be where he is now if this wasn't so. McCain's campaign will easily weather this fiasco and be strong as ever come the second debate, if the economy holds out that long.

Bad Literature

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/scott.rice/blfc2008.htm

The premise of this contest has always amused me. I may have to enter it next time. Here's a potential contest entry.

Horribly beweaponed warship in hand, James Flannigan warped into space forgetting that one should be wearing a space suit and/or be resting comfortably inside the simulated atmosphere of one's spacecraft.

Tired of the Election?

Vote third party.

Blogification

I've had an idea on the backburner for some time. Specifically, I've been thinking about making a blog that actually had a purpose beyond providing a selfish creative outlet. The idea has been gestating for some time, and it's finally looking to go somewhere.

The concept is to make a blog about World of Warcraft, specifically targetted at the subsection of World of Warcraft players who, like me, are generalists. You know how I play every last character in Super Smash Bros? Same thing, only a different game. There isn't a blog that I've found on the subject, or at least one that's remotely popular (bad sign perhaps, but whatever).

The problem I've come across is finding a name. Website names need to be short, interesting, and easy to roll off the brain/tongue. They also should reflect your website's theme. For instance, a title like "NoBlogForOldMen", while amusing and simple, wouldn't be good for a blog about candy.

I've come up with a few titles based on the term "alt" (short for alternative) which refers to secondary characters one plays in addition to their favorite. The point of this post isn't to decide between them, but to solicit more names as the following are inadequate. Suggestions don't have to include the word alt so long as they have a sufficiently witty reference to similar concepts (such as MPD, or any concept involving one person doing/being/seeming like many things).

So, the names.

Maximum Altitude - This one was and is my favorite. It's easily shortened to MaxAlt, has some clever wordplay and implies both an extreme and excellence. Despite that, it fails on a few counts. First, pronouncing altitude with the alt from alternative is potentially awkward. Second, there are already a number of websites and blogs by that name pertaining to climbing and similar pursuits.

Altitude Problem - This too has clever wordplay and implies an extreme (though a different one). It lacks the potential implication of excellent, the easy shorthand, while still maintaining the awkward pronounciation. However, there wouldn't be a million sites by the same name.

Altaholics Anonymous - Perhaps the cleverest wordplay yet. However, it implies an attempt to recover rather than to inform. Shortening it to AA would obviously conflict with another organization.

Alternative Reality - It's nifty, plays on virtual worlds, contains the expanded version of "alt" and implies a comprehensive nature. My issue here is it doesn't seem catchy. It's lofty, high in the air, and abstract.

Alter Boy - This is catchy, but I'm pretty sure it implies Catholic over Presbyterian. It also implies I'm a lot younger then I am. (Use of Alter over Altar intentional, though either could work).

Alt Addict - Very straightforward, abbreviable, and descriptive, I just wish it had more pizazz.

Obviously no name will be perfect, but I'm sure I can find something better. Again, I'm soliciting you for names. I'll keep tryig to come up with my own, but any help will be appreciated.

What to do when you and 99 of your Best Friends are Bored.

I can barely breathe.

Disposable Email

http://10minutemail.com/10MinuteMail/index.html

Personally, this is the best idea ever.

Oh, and Spore comes out in a few days.

Factual Basis

I won't bother linking the video, but I was highly amusing by an exchange between CNN's Campbell Brown and the McCain campaign's own Tucker Bounds. The exchange is reported to be the cause of McCain canceling his Larry King Live appearance.

The "interview" was interesting in that Brown asked an obvious and basic question: Given that the McCain campaign has made foreign policy experience a major issue, what experience does Sarah Palin have that qualifies her in this regard? It's a question you'd assume any decent campaign spokesperson would have an answer for.

Instead, Bounds fumbled the answer in an amazing display of political shystering. The best moment was when Brown pointed out it was the Pentagon, not the state governor, who had the authority to send the National Guard overseas. Bounds responded saying "On a factual basis they certainly do."

I like that, "on a factual basis". The implications of that statement are many and delicious.

Implication 1: There's a functional nonfactual basis the McCain campaign works from.
Implication 2: Factual bases are simply one of many at one's disposal, perhaps not even a major one.
Implication 3: Sarah Palin has no foreign policy experience worth speaking of, and hasn't made any notable executive decisions, but that's not going to stop us from making some up.

I'm riding hard on this not because I think this is at all indicative of the McCain campaign as a whole (though someone else might think that way). It's just that you'd think a campaign spokesman sent to talk with the largest news network in the nation would be better prepared to answer the single most obvious question they could be asked. This was Bounds' chance to lay a solid thwacking on Obama while building up Palin, which he blew quite solidly.

Rant: Stories and MMOs

So my brother made a blog post a few days ago about MMOs, and that spawned this thought process.

The problem with having a story in an MMO is that inevitably there are too many actors. Everyone wants to be the hero, but you can only have to many heroes without a story feeling cheap (see Sluggy's recent commentary on respawning evil quest mobs). When the NPCs are the supporting actors, you end up having hundreds, thousands, even millions of star actors.

But that's entirely the wrong train of thought. MMOs don't need a story, or at least those that I've played. The story is the players themselves.

The weakness of such MMOs isn't that they limit what players can accomplish. Players have no final effect on their environment aside from their effect on other players, which could hypothetically be part of the motivation of griefing. This lack of investment in the Player's ability to shape their environment is ignoring the strongest pull for play.

What you need aren't the tools for players to design their own worlds, but to have an effect on their own world. To have players create by playing.

In an MMO where cities can be sacked, leaders killed, nations conquered the players are motivated to make history. They can recall "I was at the battle of Fanador, and was at the forefront of the suicidal charge through the gate". They can say, "Ah yes, I gave my life defending the King of Pelas". They can wax nostalgic, "It was I who furnished arms for the High Guard of Tornoth before they made their final, wild charge to death and glory." This is exciting, this is visceral, this is history.

It's the ultimate solution to the "consuming is easier than creating" problem. For almost everyone reading history is infinitely more boring than making history. Give the reins of history into the hands of players and you have the truest form of digital crack possible.

Granted, there are amazing hurdles to surmount. Balance is a nightmare, the disconnect between impermanent death and permanent world effect could be offsetting, what are the incentives for being a part of the wars, and what if the scale makes it too much like the real world where the effect of one person feels too small?

But these are problems equivalent to those other MMOs face today. The MMO I've described here has a completely different dynamic. It doesn't require leveling because your investment is in the world as much as the character. It doesn't requiring grinding the same mobs over and over again, battles will never be the same. It trades one set of problems for another.

Now someone read this post, steal the idea, and make the MMO for me. I'm lazy.

New

I am slow as molasses to change. For all my philosophical musings on the dangers of sedate living, I'm a homebody, a mama's boy, and extremely stubborn when it comes to moving forward.

At the moment the dams of stubbornness are bowing under the stress of a building desire to do... something. Whether it's whip myself into better physical shape, learn the guitar, start a World of Warcraft blog or do all sorts of 1337 video editing something's probably going to give...

...in the next year. Hey, I did say slow as molasses.

A Good Answer

I like to think, and as a thinker I'm naturally drawn to two kinds of thinking. The first is purely exploratory, engaging such thoughts as "What are the practical implications of pokemon in a real world?" The second is the problem solver's paradox, most of the time one spends thinking is on problems you don't succeed in solving.

Abortion and homosexuality are issues that fall under the second category, and I've spent a lot of time thinking about them. While I've come a long way from my evangelical naivety I haven't come to any hard conclusions about either. In the end, the best that I can come up with is that these issues are both symptoms of greater problems in society that won't go away until those greater problems are solved.

Having spent so much time failing to come up with a practical solution, I found myself impressed upon reading the following excerpt from the Compassion Forum held at Messiah College back in April. Bolded sections are my emphasis.

REV. SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL HISPANIC LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE: Senator Obama, the vast majority of Americans believe that abortion is a decision to be made by a woman, her family and her doctors. However, the vast majority of Americans similarly believe that abortion is the taking of a human life.
The terms pro-choice and pro-life, do they encapsulate that reality in our 21st Century setting and can we find common ground?
OBAMA: I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. Number one, it requires us to acknowledge that there is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.
The second thing, once we acknowledge that, is to recognize that people of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.
And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion.
And we've actually made progress over the last several years in reducing teen pregnancies, for example. And what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children.
But we also recognize the importance of good medical care for women, that we're also recognizing the importance of age-appropriate education to reduce risks. I do believe that contraception has to be part of that education process.
And if we do those things, then I think that we can reduce abortions and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there. If we put all of those things in place, then I think we will take some of the edge off the debate.
We're not going to completely resolve it. I mean, there -- you know, at some point, there may just be an irreconcilable difference. And those who are opposed to abortion, I think, should continue to be able to lawfully object and try to change the laws.
OBAMA: Those of us, like myself, who believe that in this difficult situation it is a woman's responsibility and choice to make in consultation with her doctor and her pastor and her family.
I think we will continue to suggest that that's the right legal framework to deal with the issue. But at least we can start focusing on how to move in a better direction than the one we've been in the past.
MEACHAM: Senator, do you personally believe that life begins at conception? And if not, when does it begin?
OBAMA: This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates...

I had previously been concerned about Obama's support for abortion rights, as while I dislike the approaches of the extreme right toward the issue (to put it lightly) I find it very hard to justify the cancellation of potential life post-conception. My personal squeamishness, however, is not in and of itself a convincing argument to others.

But the very idea of a convincing argument is in itself flawed. The theoretical omnipersuasive argument doesn't exists, and Obama clearly responds with that in mind. Clearly outlining both his beliefs and his position on the issue, Obama's response shows that this isn't a subject he's thought about only in passing. Rather than attempt a solution to the problem of resolving the views of diametrically opposed groups, he instead suggests diminishing the object of their conflict.

In and of itself this isn't a solution to the problem, but it's an achievable pathway to making solutions possible. That's how one circumvents indestructible barriers and accomplishes change.

Obama remains far from 100% perfect, but I'm confident at this point that despite his faults he is willing and capable of effecting the change he calls for.

What remains is for McCain to prove that he will be the maverick in office he has been in years past. He, in my mind, is at a similar crossroads that Hillary encountered during the primaries. She took a wrong turn then, destroying much that she had accomplished in attempting to defeat Obama. I recall McCain's speeches a month prior to Obama's victory, in which he sharply criticized Obama's calls for change as not being policies but instead platitudes. That McCain was a maverick, and not afraid to call Obama out where he was weak without being negative. That McCain has also been strangely absent since Obama won the primaries.

Hopefully I'll encounter a excerpt of McCain's which gives me similar faith in his abilities as a President. I'd very much like that to be the case. The idea of having to choose between candidates not because they are both bad, but because they are both very good is one I've been keen on since this all started.

Why Am I Not Surprised

Would it be at all surprising if I stated that the nature of the politic debates at Messiah College was continually that of extreme polar opposites squaring off over trivialities without any interest in mutual understanding and world betterment? No? Didn't think so.

It's not that there weren't dedicated Republicans, Democrats, and Moderates with intelligence, poise, eloquence and grace. It's just most didn't want to bother with the shouting matches and those that did either were drowned out or roasted alive.\

In any case, now whenever I have to explain to my coworkers what college I came from I can always say, "You know that ridiculous woman who illegally discriminated in her hiring practices for the Justice Department? Yeah... I went to the same college she did."

E3 2008: The Doldroms

It wasn't long ago that the entire gaming community was breathless every May as the much vaunted E3 exploded with fantastic claims of supremacy by the big three console makers, amazing demos of soon to be blockbuster games, and plenty of speculation as to the market's future.

This year, very little of that happened.

The E3 of old is truly dead and gone, a relic of an era coming to a close. The first steps toward making videos an accepted form of mass media have been taken, and the rest can only follow.

What makes E3 2008 so unremarkable is not the shift of focus to a wider audience, but rather how little things have changed in the past year. Nintendo is still reaping the incredible rewards of their strategy, Microsoft is still blindly scrambling to hop on board, and Sony is still drifting. There's nothing new under the sun.

There were various points of interest. Nintendo announced a new attachment for their Wiimote, supposedly this one will allow for true 1:1 mapping of movement to control. Microsoft announced more changes to their Xbox Live interface including insidiously familiar avatars (they essentially look like the "hip" version of Miis), and Sony once again heaped incredible pre-rendered footage and promises at our feet, begging for just one more year to get their act together as another exclusive title became not so exclusive.

Nothing that particularly shook the status quo happened.

Sure, the usual herds of insanely rabid fanboys swarmed the internet trolling forums and news sites claiming X, Y or Z spelled the ascension or continued dominance of one company while A, B or C spelled doom for another. This time, however, people largely didn't bite. No one cared to, what was the point?

Sure, Final Fantasy 13 is no longer a PS3 exclusive, but it's not like any of their exclusives thus far have been that spectacular. Harping on the PS3s games library at this point is like harping on President Bush for his bad foreign relations.

Sure, the new Wii attachment could be seen as basically admitting that the Wiimote alone wasn't sufficient for true 1:1 motion capture. That revelation is as old as the Wii's release date. It's sudden rerevealing doesn't mean that Nintendo suddenly loses its profits, marketshare or mindshare.

Sure, Microsoft's presentation once again stank of their impossible attempts to understand the house that Miyamoto built. Once again, this has been pretty obvious from the get go. Acting as though their continued inability to comprehend what lies beyond the realm of teenage to college-aged male gaming is anything new is disingenuous considering they've been at it since last generation.

So for the hardcore gamer, this year's E3 was something of a bust. Both Nintendo and Microsoft were focused largely on people other than you, and Sony had nothing interesting except the stuff we we've been hearing about for two to four years already. At a time when typically salvos of new games taking hardware and game design to new peaks are being revealed, instead we find ourselves watching as our kid sibling the "casual gamer" gets all the attention.

It's a tough pill to swallow for people who've been the center of attention for two decades. The pendulum is swinging away, and for a while the old guard is going to be largely ignored except for misguided attempts at more Halo-like FPSs. Eventually it'll swing back our way, then forth again, and back again until eventually the momentum dies entirely and we have a nice equilibrium.

For now, I'll just look forward to Spore, the next WoW expansion and my currently vastly underplayed library of cool games that have already come out but I haven't beaten (Twilight Princess, Trauma Center, Ninja Gaiden 2, Armored Core 4 etc).

Seabass 2008

Four years ago my forum friends and I started a campaign. Neither Bush nor Kerry were adequate to lead this country, and so we turned to the one man we knew who could do the job.

Seabass.

He was intermittently active on the forums, Canadian, and didn't seem particularly rational. Given that the other candidates were similarly unqualified, we couldn't think of a better man for the job. Besides, his avatar was a guy with an exploding head.

Seabass didn't get elected that year, we blame Mexico. However, we continued to lie in wait, biding our time for the right moment to try again.

That time is now.



Seabass is obviously the best candidate for the job. As a resident of Canada, he has far more experience with foreigners than either candidate. As a man with an exploding head he, more than anyone else, is aware of the calamitous results of bad security policy.

Truly this man should lead the country.

Seabass 2008.

People and Places

I've stated numerous times that the reason I'm drawn to World of Warcraft over other games. While I am an introvert, I need a human presence in my gaming. My dependency on my fellows is continually rehighlighted as I play.

Sometimes it's for good reasons. Downing a boss for the first time as a guild is always an adrenaline powered high. Running around an arena having a massing FFA is also quite exciting. Often it's just the simple, if hilarious, guild conversations. Usually I can ride these waves through levels, grinding, and more mundane activities.

Other times events happen that completely stymie my ability to play the game at all. Someone leaves the guild for selfish reasons, a member displays a bad attitude, a miscommunication occurs, and many other events can sap the will to play.

The people in WoW are what make or break the game. Whether they're your friends, the bums vandalizing trade chat, or the gold farmers, I can't escape the connections personal and impersonal within the game. It's both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness of the game.

We'll see how this double edged sword cuts this summer.

Spore: First Impressions

Spore is that game at its conception blew me away. Three years after my father bemoaned the eventual sycophantic siphoning of his sons' creativity, the leeching has finally begun.

Earlier this week EA released what one might call a minuscule portion of Spore to the public. Though the game itself will not be available until September, the editor allowing the creation and sculpting of creatures is available for download. In true EA fashion it costs money, but thankfully there's a version sporting only 25% of the available biology one can try for free.

I spent a meager hour and half with the editor last night in order to give first impressions. Realize that not only have I little experience with this super playdough, but I also was working with only 25% of its potential.

As is my wont I pushed the limits of what the editor allowed me to do. In doing so I made a few interesting creatures I'll have to share later. However, I encountered the following nuisances. It may be that I'm still a novice and haven't found the mystical keys to overcoming these obstacles, but the barriers were present and, as always, vexed me.

1) Forward is forced. There's a pointy end to the disk upon which you play creator, and that is the direction your creature considers forward. Feet will always face that direction, and creature actions will all function based on the assumption that this is their facing. This results in humorous, if frustrating, results when you have a creatures slimy maw on the other side of its body. It will dash in the game's sense of "forward", but fail to turn around for its strike. It also doesn't seem to want to walk backwords, often awkwardly turning in ways that doesn't look natural depending on your creature's design.

2) Multi-pronged limbs are limited. It may be that lacking multi-jointed limbs prevented this form of exploration, but I wasn't able to have limbs branch off one another. Given some of the demonstrated creatures, this was disappointing.

3) Complexity is very abstract. There's a meter indicating the complexity of your creature. When it fills, nothing more may be added. However, some seemingly simple changes can fill the meter much faster than adding dozens of doodads one might consider complex.

Despite these setbacks the editor is a lot of fun. I could easily lose an evening perfecting my mutant races like the Xel'naga. I do hope some of the limiting issues are dealt with before release, though if they're releasing the creature editor at this point I have my doubts there'll be much difference.

Shameless Ignorance

Normally I like to think of myself as a gentle, diplomatic person who tries to bridge gaps and break down communication barriers. To that effect, I generally avoid throwing around names, blame and anything similarly antagonizing wherever I can.

Not today.

A week ago a common catchphrase was "If Hillary doesn't win I'll vote for McCain". Today it's "If Hillary doesn't get the VP slot I'll vote for McCain" when it isn't "Because Hillary lost I'm voting McCain". I have a brief message for all the people expressing these notions.

You're idiots.

This is not because voting for McCain is idiotic per se, but because the implicit motivations for doing so are. None of the people I've seen making a big deal about voting for McCain in place of Hillary are doing so over policy or presidential potential.

I have plenty of Republican and moderate friends who can and will make an excellent case for voting for McCain over Obama. One of the reasons they will not give is "because I'm whiny over Hillary losing". That's a ridiculously stupid motivation, and it's equally disrespectful to all of the candidates involves.

You might dispute that this is the reason you're declaring that you'd never vote for Obama, but if that's the case back it up. Put some bite behind your bark because otherwise you look like a political idiot. Obama's policies and positions are too similar to Hillary's for people to assume you know what you're talking about when you leave it at "Obama sucks, I'm voting McCain".

There are bound to be people who are switching from Hillary to McCain with a sane mind and reason, but I highly doubt they're the ones making a big stink about their choice.

In conclusion, get over yourselves and the primaries, then make an informed decision this fall.

What can you do in eight minutes?

Answer: Review the entire timeline of the Democratic Party Primaries.

Druid Haiku

I like writing poetry. Unfortunately, the following haiku are entirely topical to WoW.

Seeing Treants burn,
only you can prevent them,
wisdom from Bear Form.

Start with highest rank,
with second best repeating,
proper Moonfire spam.

Great saga of durid,
knowledge ageless and humble,
teaches Alamo.

As an aside, I spend some time debating the proper syllable count for "Moonfire". The way in which "Fire" is pronounced makes it difficult to peg. It's technically one syllable, but it's pronounced (at least by me) as Fi-er. It doesn't feel smooth enough rolling off my tongue to count as just one. However, I deferred to the dictionary to maintain the phrase.

Almost there...

A lot of people, myself included, are looking forward to June 4th. On that day, the final tallies will be counted, the numbers processed, and the pundits will give their epitaphs for the election. There will be nothing left to discuss, and we as a country will move on to better and greater things.

Wait, no, I'm wrong.

Come August will be the Democratic National Convention. There, finally, we will have our official branded conclusion. Our next President will be decided, and we can all take a deep sigh of relief and relax.

Hah, who am I kidding?

The Daily Show with John Stewart termed it best, "The Long, Seemingly Endless Bataan Death March to the White House". This won't be over when the last Primary is done, and it certainly won't be over when the convention starts. There'll be a brief period where there isn't any primary fuel for the political news tsunami, but there's plenty of secondary kindling in the form of vice presidential speculation, shots over the bow from both sides, and Hillary's refusal to bow out.

So if you were looking for much political relief in the month of June, you'll sadly have to wait until January. In the meantime, my views on the current political situation.

The current polls of who would win which state in the general election at this point are like predicting who will win a Marathon after the first mile. To say "a lot can happen" is a vast understatement, almost everything has yet to happen. The general election might be as exciting as the democratic primary, or it might be the single dullest general election ever. We can't tell.

The vice presidential searches going on will be more interesting when some actual names are dropped. I don't know enough politicians or politics to have any sense for what would make sense.

Hillary.

There have been a number of allegations recently, spawned by the once vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, that Hillary Clinton lost due to sexism. While I'm sure that sexism has naturally had some small measure of impact, I think that pointing it out as though it were the major or sole cause of her demise is foolhardy and disrespectful to the harsh realities that women face every day.

Look at the playing field. Every last white, Anglo-Saxon male democratic candidate was absolutely positively demolished, by a woman and an African-American no less. There should be people singing praises for how both candidates have overcome boundaries once thought unbreakable, but apparently that only counts if you get elected.

Generally, I tend to rule out sexism as a major contributing factor because it strikes me that racism is probably an equal barrier for Obama, if not a greater one. It's tough to say as no one took polls on misogyny, but with recent wins for Hillary showing 20% of people admitting they're racist... one has to stop and wonder how much of a disadvantage she really had.

Clinton had key advantages starting out. She was slated to win before it began, she had massive name recognition, money, allies, and super delegates who had already thrown their support behind her. News coverage was basically Clinton vs Everyone Else, with Everyone Else losing soundly.

What lost her this campaign was complacency and short term thinking. She was presumed to be the 2008 nominee as early as 2004. A good contender doesn't rest easy when they're on top, but Clinton did. Her campaign was set up under a number of really bad assumptions as to the nature of the primary season and it showed.

It was assumed that there wouldn't be any substantial competition. The campaign worked from the top down, convincing first the all important local politicians and going down from there. They'd be crucial for the general election. However, in a contested primary this is a very bad strategy. Working from the bottom up not only tends to get more votes (and more people to caucuses) but it also ties the hands of democrats who are still somewhat sour over Al Gore's 2000 popular vote win and presidential loss. The local politicians won't go against the popular vote unless they feel bold enough to risk the ire of their constituents.

It was assumed it would be short. This lead to several separate issues.

Short campaigns don't need to ration money. Once "Super Tuesday" ended the Clinton campaign was effectively bankrupt. They had assumed that would be the end, and Obama's uncontested victories throughout February were the result; completely reversing te gap Hillary had established.

Short campaigns don't need careful consideration. There were a number of promises, positions and policies Hillary spoke about early on which were completely reversed later. Comparing her words from last year versus a few months ago versus today is like looking at three separate people. As a result, her trustworthiness is down the chute.

Short campaigns don't need a unifying theme or message, which Clinton did not have until well into the primary season. Without a clear purpose or response to Obama, he was granted a free ride on his rhetoric for months. It took the internet to find his crazy once-pastor and finally break the invincible bubble.

As much as Rudy Guilliani's campaign will go down in history as how not to win a nomination, so too will Hillary Clinton's.

Right now, Clinton's main arguments are the unseated Delegates in Florida and Michigan and her greater potential for the general election. Lets look at the situation.

I won't go into the math because it's boring, finicky, and pointless. By Obama's math he's obtained a solid majority of pledged delegates in addition to his lead in the popular vote. By Clinton's math no majority has been reached yet, and she leads the popular vote.

The difference comes down to two things, caucuses and the disenfranchised states of Florida and Michigan (a deed effectively done by their own legislatures). Clinton doesn't count caucus votes in her popular vote totals, and she is firmly of the opinion that you can't have a majority without taking into account Florida and Michigan.

I personally find both disingenuous. The former because it's stupidly selective (lets subtract all states that used a particular kind of ballot, had their primaries in months beginning with F, or looked at me funny), and the latter because it actually doesn't help her any.

In the case of the latter, allotting the delegates based on her wins in those states loses her the nomination. Obama retains his majority on pledged delegates and, by any sensical way of counting it, his lead in the popular vote. Hillary closes the gap significantly, but is still so far short that more than 70% of super delegates would have to back her in order for her to win.

This is why so many pundits, talk show hosts, newcasters and political analysts have called the election for Obama. The democrats can not hope to field Hillary as a candidate without alienating their support base. The kind of "screw you" nomination theft that would have to occur would completely obliterate the hopeful people who have set record turnouts and made this primary season as big a deal as it is and was. A very significant portion of Obama's supporters, myself included, would be disheartened, depressed, and ultimately disinclined to ever care about politics again.

The democrats want a democratic president too much for that to happen.